Skip to comments.Supreme Court: Yes, (some) corporations can pray--and you'll all pay
Posted on 06/30/2014 2:18:49 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
In its decision Monday in the Hobby Lobby case, the conservative Supreme Court majority that upheld corporations' religious objections to birth control spends an inordinate amount of time defending itself from the reasoning and wrath of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent.
Justice Samuel Alito, whose name is on the decision, alludes no fewer than 24 times to the "principal dissent," which Ginsburg wrote for the four-member minority. Plainly, he felt Ginsburg's powerful intellect breathing down his neck as he tried to find a path to upholding the Hobby Lobby parties' attack on women's rights without expanding corporate "personhood" too much.
It will be said that Monday's decision walked a fine line, giving the Hobby Lobby owners what they sought without opening the floodgates to religious objections to a wide range of laws and regulations.
The court has signaled that it's open as never before to claims by private businesses for exemptions from laws that apply to the rest of us, based on religious beliefs that can't be objectively verified. And if they win, we'll pay. Ginsburg's question is apt: What's next?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The smell must have been horrible.
Has "intellect" become another name for halitosis?
Alito wins. Ginsberg loses. It is settled law.
Transvestites can have surgeries on TAXPAYER money.
That is much more OBSCENE THAN THIS.
And then there is the case of the VA buying 1/2 BILLION dollars in SOLAR PANELS while VETERANS due to OBAMA incompetence...
No, we don’t want to pay, that is the point!
[ Alito wins. Ginsberg loses. It is settled law. ]
It is only settled law if it comes out in favor of the liberals
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Hiltzik is a huge leftist, like practically everyone at the Times. I would discount anything he says on this issue.
For many years our health insurance plans did not include contraception and I don’t ever recall any hardship. With contraceptives now cheap and available everywhere without any stigma why is this such a problem???
“Ginsburg’s powerful intellect”
If that “intellect” consists of agreeing with & repeating anything ever written by Eleanor Roosevelt, then it is to laugh.
Actually, if the liberals win...we pay.
Gov't mandated that we must pay for these atrocious items. Liberal always force us to pay.
Color me glad.
With a capital G.
That’s where I quit reading, no time for stupidity like that.
Wow, liberals really do live in a fantasy world.
Ginsburg’s “powerful intellect”? I’ve been reading her opinions for many years now, and her reasoning could be described many ways... none of which include the terms “powerful intellect”. That’s even before she started sleeping through cases, and even before her court opinions started sounding like she was meandering her way towards some liberal shibboleth like a senile dementia patient shuffling around the retirement home.
...Has “intellect” become another name for halitosis?...
I can only assume that since the error hasn't been corrected yet across the media that they're referring to the decision as withholding birth control to inflame passions.
Besides that, nobody is telling the affected employees that they can't have abortion-inducing medications. They'll have to pay for it themselves.
The media has become pathetic.
“laws that apply to the rest of us, based on religious beliefs that can’t be objectively verified “
Kinda like Global Warming huh, LA times
Regardless of today's win for patriots at the Supreme Court, let's not forget the following. Regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of constitutionally indefensible
Obamacare Democratcare, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate public healthcare purposes.
In other words, the Hobby Lobby case should never have happened.
The woman looks like a senescent chimpanzee.
The 1st Amendment of the US prohibits the Congress from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
And what did the Congress just do?
Nothing worse than a Progressive scorned.
Excellent b!tch slap of the LA Slimes.
the conservative Supreme Court majority that upheld corporations’ religious objections to birth control
Okay you dropped the ball right there and nothing else you say has meaning. You failed in honesty so we can not believe anything else you say.
The objection was NOT to birth control, it was them being forced to pay for it. Any women can still get all the birth control she can swallow. She just must be willing to pay for it herself. So you lose the argument because you resorted to disortion as usual....
Hiltzik, Hiltzik, Hiltzik...
We are all paying now.
And we (working, net-taxpaying Americans) will all be paying forever, no matter how the chairs on the Obamacare Titanic are rearranged.
Such stupid should burn.
Have you read her dissent? It's leftist garbage, not respectable jurisprudence. She condemns the majority decision as opening the door to establishment of religion, all the while ignoring the fact that forcing a business to act against its religious principles does IN FACT contravene the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
And the rest of her diatribe is equally fallacious. It's a stunning example of poor reasoning, which I guess is why it's held in such high esteem by the dolts at the LA Tombs.
Well played sir!
Now THAT should be a tagline!!
“intellect”... is that what they call it?
In polite company. Like the vapors.
The LA times isn’t fit to line birdcages.
You must get an abortion, you must be sterilized, you must use birth control.
That would interfere with her right to chose
But the left thinks it can tell the same women..
You must pay for another women abortion, you must pay for another woman's sterilization, you must pay for another women birth control.
I wonder if even the left believes their own overheated rhetoric.
Forcing employers to violate their religious faith and pay for something the government could easily provide women itself becomes an 'attack on women'.
And tens of thousands see no problem with this line of reasoning.